JEAN ANN JERGENSEN v. EDWIN MICHAEL JERGENSEN

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1280-04T11280-04T1

JEAN ANN JERGENSEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EDWIN MICHAEL JERGENSEN,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Argued November 2, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Parker and Grall.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County, Docket No. FM-19-490-00.

Richard J. Kaplow argued the cause for appellant.

Natalie L. Thompson argued the cause for respondent (Gruber, Colabella, Liuzza, Kutlya & Ullman, attorneys; Ms. Thompson, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Jean Ann Jergensen appeals from two orders entered on October 1, 2004, the first finding plaintiff in violation of litigant's rights; directing her to comply with the terms of an order entered on May 21, 2004, reimburse defendant for unreimbursed, medical, dental and counseling expenses in the amount of $2,950.77; and to comply with Dr. Edwin Rosenberg's directive that she participate in family counseling with the children within thirty days of the order. The second order entered on October 1 directs the parties to follow the parenting, visitation and custodial recommendations of Dr. Rosenberg; orders defendant to utilize all available means to prevent erosion of plaintiff's parenting time; and denies plaintiff's application for sanctions against defendant.

The parties were married in 1987 and divorced on July 7, 2003. They have three children, Mikaela, age 15, Dannae, 13 and Tanner, 9. The judgment of divorce granted primary residential custody of the children to defendant and alternate weekend visitation to plaintiff. The judgment specifically provided that defendant encourage the children to visit their mother and for the parties to agree on an alternate third-party to serve as the "transition person for purposes of parenting drop-off and pick-up." The judgment further stated that the children's expressed preferences would not be a basis to eliminate or substantially modify plaintiff's visitation.

There has been significant post-judgment litigation arising out of the children's reluctance to visit with their mother. In May 2004, Judge James Farber appointed Dr. Rosenberg as a "parenting coordinator." Dr. Rosenberg issued a report dated June 26, 2004 recommending that plaintiff and the three children begin family therapy before the end of the summer. Dr. Rosenberg "offered three specific possible low-cost facilities, all of them close to her home in Cranford."

Rather than comply with Dr. Rosenberg's recommendation that she undertake counseling by the end of the summer, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to impose "substantial penal, economic and a non-economic sanctions" against defendant for loss of parenting time. In her certification submitted in support of the motion, plaintiff detailed her numerous grievances regarding visitation issues, and stated that she had been denied all visitation in June, July and August 2004. Plaintiff claimed that "defendant's ability to influence the decisions, preferences and behaviors of the children has been proven to this court over the past several years" and that the "children have begun to exhibit the unmistakable signs of clinical alienation from me (Parental Alienation Syndrome), brought on by the defendant's behavior in 'empowering' [the children] to resist my ceaseless efforts to reinforce my parental role and rights as their mother."

On October 1, 2004, plaintiff's motion was heard and Dr. Rosenberg testified telephonically. Asked how important plaintiff's involvement in therapy with the children was on a scale of one to ten, Dr. Rosenberg responded "Eight." He indicated that the problem was that every time the children said something, plaintiff believed they were parroting defendant. "It's as if the children don't have a voice anymore in this situation. And the children need to have voices." Dr. Rosenberg stated that the children needed the neutral environment of therapy to "find their voices" and for plaintiff to "understand just what the children's needs are, not the children's needs as expressed or transmitted by the other parent, but the children's needs as transmitted by the children with the help of a therapist to understand that these are valid needs." In Dr. Rosenberg's opinion, "that's a major, major issue here." He noted that plaintiff had difficulty getting the children to respond to her authority and that therapy is needed to help plaintiff "work at that relationship with those children so that they have a better response to her authority and to her as a caregiver."

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Farber found that defendant did not violate Rosenberg's recommendations. Rather, he found that

the Plaintiff really has fallen short in following through on recommendations. . . . [T]here were issues with her going to counseling with the children, that she didn't really truly act upon and it sounds somewhat . . . as if she's dragging her feet or has dragged her feet over the course of the summer."

The judge further stated that defendant "should use all means of preventing the children from avoiding parenting" and declined to impose sanctions on defendant. In this appeal, plaintiff argues that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to impose sanctions on defendant; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering plaintiff to allow Tanner to play hockey during her alternate weekend visitation.

We have carefully considered the record in light of plaintiff's arguments and the applicable law and we are satisfied that Judge Farber's decision in entering the two orders on October 1, 2004 was more than adequately supported by the evidence. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A). We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Farber in his decision rendered on the record on October 1, 2004. Nevertheless we add the following comments.

Plaintiff's objection to Tanner's playing hockey during his visits with her sadly demonstrates her lack of appreciation for the child's interests and activities. We suspect that if plaintiff viewed Tanner's hockey games enthusiastically, the child might have a different response to visiting with her. We are sympathetic to plaintiff's desire to spend more time with her children and to have a better relationship with them, but the record indicates that she has contributed to the children's resistance. Unfortunately, we see far too many cases in which the parties' antipathy toward each other has precipitated the children's resistance to one parent or the other. As we stated in Tahan v. Duquette, 259 N.J. Super. 328 (App. Div. 1992):

Both [parents] must come to understand that security, peace of mind and stability are every child's right. [The parents'] inability to deal constructively with each other deprives their child[ren] of [their] due, which is within [the parents'] power to give. Professed love is no substitute where it results in turmoil and uncertainty for the child who is pulled in opposite directions by his parents. [The children] will receive what [they] desperately need[] in this regard only if both parties are genuinely prepared to subordinate their individual needs to the best interest[s] of the child[ren] and begin to communicate with each other solely for the benefit of the child[ren]. We urge the parties to make an effort to resolve this matter between themselves with professional assistance. Otherwise, there is a substantial risk that they will doom their [children] to a future of conflict, sadness and certain psychological harm.

[Id. at 336 (emphasis added).]

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

6

A-1280-04T1

November 15, 2005

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.